Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMemo_3.27.17Page 1 of 16 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Skadron and City Council FROM: Jennifer Phelan, Deputy Planning Director THRU: Jessica Garrow, Community Development Director RE: Gorsuch Haus (S. Aspen Street) –Planned Development and Associated Reviews 2nd Reading of Ordinance No. 39 (Series of 2016) (Public hearing) MEETING DATE: March 27, 2017 APPLICANT /OWNER: Norway Island, LLC Aspen Skiing Company, LLC (owner) REPRESENTATIVE: Design Workshop, Inc. LOCATION: Four parcels, at the top of and along the east side of S. Aspen Street (Lift 1A). CURRENT ZONING & USE Located in the Conservation (C) zone district. The current use of the property is as the base of a ski lift (Lift 1A). PROPOSED LAND USE: The Applicant is requesting to develop a hotel with commercial, free-market residential and affordable housing and to rezone the property to the SKI zone district. Additionally, Lift 1A is proposed to be relocated. SUMMARY: The Applicant requests City Council approval for a number of land use reviews in order to redevelop the site with a new mixed use building and to relocate the Lift 1A base. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended denial of the proposal. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council provide additional direction to the Applicant with regard to site plan and building changes necessary for this project to move forward. Several aspects of the project appear to require restudy or more detailed information that will take time to assemble. Therefore, staff recommends the application be tabled and re-noticed for a future date. Photo: Lift 1 A Page 2 of 16 SPECIAL NOTE: Below are topics that were identified as needing discussion in the staff memo of March 6th. Included as Exhibits V and W are two letters from the applicant outlining project modifications being proposed to address these concerns. Staff’s updated responses are identified with bullets. 1) Building Mass and Scale. The applicant is proposing to modify the site plan and make changes to the mass and scale of the building. The site plan has been modified with an enlarged cul-de-sac, and the mass has been broken into two buildings. Additionally, the applicant is proposing to include a mix of gabled and flat roof forms into the buildings. The second, smaller structure is proposed to house skier services and may be able to accommodate on-site affordable housing. According to the applicant’s memo, the overall length of the lodge building has been reduced, as well as the height; however, the applicant is requesting to measure the height of the buildings in a way that is contrary to code. • Staff does not support any modification in the measurement of height. The current measurement, from natural or finished grade (whichever is more restrictive), is in place so that a developer works with the topography of a property rather than extensively regrade it. The applicant is requesting that height be measured from natural grade only. • Although staff believes that this new site plan and massing proposal is an improvement, not enough detail has been provided to analyze the extent of changes. Will the new building impact the ability to move people up the mountain if the lift cannot be lowered towards Dean? 2) Public Rights-of-way proposed for vacation/utility needs. The applicant has modified the request to vacate rights-of-way. Page 3 of 16 The request to vacate Hill Street has been withdrawn; however, improvements to the Hill Street right of way are proposed and could be approved via an encroachment and maintenance agreement. All of the Summit Street right of way and a portion of the east half of the S. Aspen Street right-of-way are still proposed to be vacated, while a portion of the development parcel would be dedicated as public right-of-way in the form of the expanded cul-de-sac. The proposed lodge would be located upon the two rights of way. • Engineering still has concerns with regard to vacating rights-of -way, particularly from the standpoint of mudflow and utilities (Exhibit Y). Before considering vacations of the rights of way, the design should must demonstrate there is adequate space for all utilities. Additionally, the vacation of the right way should be shown to be in the best interest of the city. 3) Termination of Aspen Street. The termination of Aspen Street has been modified. The applicant is proposing an enlarged cul-de-sac with a delineated pull-off for hotel guests, a drop off lane is also provided on a portion of the cul-de-sac to accommodate skier drop off. A landscaped island within the cul-de-sac will assist in accommodating snow storage. • As noted by the Engineering department, “the cul- de-sac design must function for the many users of the area, including but not limited to skier drop off, hotel loading, pedestrian use, residential use, skier services, and emergency vehicle access.” Although the design is an improvement from the last iteration, additional feedback from the fire department is needed and further analysis by the engineering department is necessary to ensure that the cul-de-sac functions appropriately. 4) Transportation options. The Applicant is proposing a rubber tire solution for transport to and from the site. A passenger van is proposed to provide transport to and from the site. Essentially, this solution adds another hotel shuttle to the traffic circulating through downtown. The transportation department is interested in a more creative solution, whether it is partnering with other small lodges to fill a transit gap or potentially partnering with SkiCo (to name a few options). The existing proposal is not supported. Page 4 of 16 5) Overview of the lodge zone district. What are the requirements for the project? The lodge zone district provides for height and density incentives based on the number of lodge units compared to the lot area. The denser the project, the greater the incentive. The height range allowed is 28 feet up to 36 - 38 feet (with 40 feet achievable through commercial design review). With a higher density of lodge units, a higher height is permitted. The Floor Area Ratio is also on a sliding scale of 1:1 or 2.5:1, again based on the density of the lodge units. A percentage of free- market residential allowed in a lodge project is based upon the average size of the lodge units. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council provide further direction to the applicant identifying areas of the project that should be modified. Although the body of the previous staff memo is provided for reference, following are staff’s suggestion for discussion during the March 27th hearing: Site Plan. The site plan, including the cul-de-sac, is improving. Removing the cantilever over the proposed public right-of-way opens up the arrival to the cul-de-sac and implies a more public space. Although the second building, that would provide skier services, assists in breaking up the mass, it will be important to determine how the building may impact the skier return and if the new building would prohibit the moving of people uphill from Dean. Additional perspectives will be needed to ensure that the new design provides open views to the mountain. Retaining walls should be minimized and more study may be needed of certain areas being retained. Building Design. Staff generally believes that incorporating the gabled roof form will complement the neighborhood and assist in breaking down the mass; however, staff is still concerned that the overall scale and mass of the building may too large for this sensitive site. Additional drawings are necessary to provide a more in-depth analysis. As stated earlier, staff does not support granting any variation in how height is measured. Lift access. Staff is working on a scope of services with a third party consultant on options to move people from Dean Street up the hill, whether that is in the form of a lower lift terminal or some type of people mover from Dean to the proposed ski lift. The consultant should be able to begin the work at the beginning of April. City Council may identify additional specific areas of the project that should continue to be modified. At a minimum, staff would recommend that the applicant continue to work on mass and scale issues, and reconsider the transportation proposal (both the rubber tire solution and the lift/lift corridor issues). Once direction is provided to the applicant, staff recommends Council table the application at the end of the hearing. Tabling the application will allow the applicant to make changes to the project, resubmit, and then schedule a new public hearing that will require noticing in the form of publication, mailing and posting. When the applicant resubmits, the following items are needed before a hearing will be scheduled: • Complete, updated design drawings inclusive of floor plans, floor area calculations, sections, elevations and perspectives. • An updated and modified transportation plan. Page 5 of 16 • Updated affordable housing mitigation (both in the amount necessary and how it will be provided). • Complete utility design as requested by the engineering department. PROPOSED MOTION: “I move to table the public hearing on the Gorsuch Haus application.” CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:_____________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ATTACHMENTS: (EXHIBITS INCLUDED IN THIS PACKET ARE IN BOLD) EXHIBIT A – Planned Development Review Criteria EXHIBIT B – Subdivision Review Criteria EXHIBIT C – Commercial Design Review EXHIBIT D – Growth Management Review Criteria EXHIBIT E – Rezoning EXHIBIT F – 8040 Green Line Review EXHIBIT G –View Plane Review EXHIBIT H – Referral Agency Comments EXHIBIT I – P&Z Resolution No. 7 (series of 2016) EXHIBIT J – P&Z minutes 7/5/16 EXHIBIT K – P&Z Minutes 7/19/16 EXHIBIT L – P&Z Minutes 8/16/16 EXHIBIT M – P&Z Minutes 9/20/16 EXHIBIT N – Public Comment EXHIBIT O – Original Application EXHIBIT P – Amended Application_10.17.16 EXHIBIT Q – Applicant’s letter dated 11.28.16 EXHIBIT R – Public Comment_post 12.12.16 EXHIBIT S – Engineering dept. letter dated 2.3.17 EXHIBIT T - Applicant’s letter dated 2.2.17 EXHIBIT U – Public Comment_entered into record on 2.13.17 EXHIBIT V - Applicant’s letter dated 3.9.17 EXHIBIT W – Applicant’s letter dated 3.16.17 EXHIBIT X – Engineering letter dated 2.27.17 EXHIBIT Y– Public Comment_post 2.13.17 DECEMBER 12TH MEMO LAND USE REQUESTS AND REVIEW PROCEDURES: The Applicant is requesting a consolidated review, meaning all final decisions are granted by the City Council based upon a recommendation by the Planning and Zoning Commission: • Planned Development - Project Review (Chapter 26.445) to establish dimensional requirements for the project as required for property requesting Ski Base zone district designation. (The Planning and Zoning Commission makes a recommendation to City Council. City Council is the final review authority). Page 6 of 16 • Rezoning (Chapter 26.310) to amend the underlying zone district for the property. The Planning and Zoning Commission makes a recommendation to City Council. City Council is the final review authority). • Conceptual Commercial Design Review (Chapter 26.412, and the Commercial Design Guidelines) for construction of a mixed-use development. (As a consolidated review, the Planning and Zoning Commission makes a recommendation to City Council. (City Council is the final review authority). • 8040 Greenline Review (Chapter 26.435) to develop in an Environmentally Sensitive Area. (As a consolidated review, the Planning and Zoning Commission makes a recommendation to City Council. City Council is the final review authority). • Mountain View Plane (Chapter 26.435) to develop in an Environmentally Sensitive Area. (As a consolidated review, the Planning and Zoning Commission makes a recommendation to City Council. City Council is the final review authority). • GMQS Reviews (Chapter 26.470) for residential multi-family, affordable housing, lodging and commercial development and allotments. (As a consolidated review, the Planning and Zoning Commission makes a recommendation to City Council. City Council is the final review authority.) • Major Subdivision for the reconfiguration of the existing parcels pursuant to Land Use Code Chapter 26.480 (City Council is the final review authority who may approve, approve with conditions, or deny the proposal after considering a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission). • Vested Property Rights for the development proposal, which allows the development to be built after approval without meeting any zoning or land use changes during a prescribed time period, pursuant to Land Use Code Chapter 26.308 (City Council is the final review authority). The Applicant is requesting a vesting period of five years (instead of ten years from the original application) rather than the standard three year period. BACKGROUND: The proposed redevelopment of Lift 1A includes a number of land use reviews inclusive of Planned Development, which is a three step review process. The first step, Planned Development – Project Review before the Planning and Zoning Commission was completed on September 20th after four public hearings. The Commission, via Resolution No. 7 (Series of 2016), recommended denial of the current proposal before the City Council (Exhibit I). Review of the application by City Council is the second step in the review process and Council will consider the application and recommendations of the Commission at a public hearing. The review (Project Review) by Council will focus on the mass, scale, site plan, and dimensions of the project. If approved by City Council, the Applicant may then make an application for Planned Development – Detailed Review which is before the Planning and Zoning Commission (step three). Additional land use approvals necessary for this project are consolidated with the Project Review portion of the Planned Development (steps 1 & 2). Page 7 of 16 The property is currently located in the Conservation zone district and is presently not located in a zone district that is subject to the requirements of Referendum 1, which requires a public vote of certain types of projects. Referendum 1 only applies to properties that were located within the CC, C-1, NC, MU, L, LP, and LO zones on January 1, 2015. PROJECT SUMMARY: The Applicant, Norway Island, LLC (which has received consent to submit a land use application by the Aspen Skiing Co., LLC), is requesting approval to redevelop four parcels located at the end of S. Aspen Street where Lift 1A is located. The city/county boundary crosses one of the subject parcels (Government Lot 31) as shown in Figure 1 1. Figure 1: Subject parcels and jurisdictional boundary 2 The Applicant requests to develop the parcels with a new mixed use building that will contain: • 67 units with 81 lodge keys (flexible configuration) • 6 free-market residential units • 1 affordable housing unit • 6,810 sq. ft. of commercial net leasable area inclusive of a restaurant, Aspen Ski Co. operations and some retail • 61 parking spaces located in a subgrade garage Typical lodging amenities are proposed such as a flex/meeting room, spa, and fitness room as part of the lodge. A new, relocated chair lift is proposed and a number of rights of way are requested 1 When a property is located within two jurisdictions, development may only occur within the boundary of the entity reviewing the land use request. 2 Subsequent images will only show Government Lot 31 to the Pitkin County/City of Aspen jurisdictional boundary. Page 8 of 16 to be vacated. Overall 70,134 sq. ft. of Floor Area (and 127,525 sq. ft. of gross area) for the entire development is proposed. Figure 2: Original and proposed site plan KEY ISSUES: There are eight different land use review processes related to the current application, listed on page 2 of the staff memo. Many contain the same or similar standards; for example, criteria for a Planned Development (PD), a Rezoning and a Subdivision all require adequate public facilities be available to serve the development and consideration of the natural environment in the review. Rather than go through each review process one at a time, this memo is written in a more narrative form, focusing on the “Key Issues” that staff has identified. The memo will reference various standards of review. Complete responses to review criteria are included as exhibits to this memo. (1) Site Planning: The property is currently comprised of four parcels, with various existing easements on the properties (for example there is a fire access/drainage easement along the Mountain Queen condominiums). The four parcels equal a total of 278,162 sq. ft. (over 6 acres) within the municipal boundary. The applicant is requesting to reconfigure the four existing parcels into two lots (rather than maintaining the same number of lots). Besides existing easements, there are three city rights of way that the applicant requests be vacated: the southerly half of Hill Street, all of Summit Street, and the easterly half of S. Aspen Street. Proposed Lot 1 will contain the hotel with amenity Page 9 of 16 areas such as exterior terraces, walkways, stairways and underground building structure. The new ski lift will also be located on lot 1 (See Figures 3 and 4). As shown in Figure 2, changes have been incorporated into the site plan and hotel proposal, compared to the initial application, based on feedback from staff and the Planning and Zoning Commission. A lower ‘hook’ portion of the building has been removed and some of the massing has been reconfigured into the remaining lower portion of the building by widening it and including a portion of the building that cantilevers over the cul-de-sac. The cul-de-sac has been enlarged from the original submission. The exterior terraces and stairs have been substantially reduced. The location of the lift has been brought downhill about twenty feet. A wider skier return is provided in the area of the Mountain Queen and Caribou condominiums. A more direct access is provided to the ski lift. As noted above, the lodge is proposed to cantilever over the cul-de-sac. The entry façade is four stories with the 3rd and 4th stories cantilevered over the cul-de-sac. The building then steps up the site for approximately 330 feet in two to four story modules depending on the elevation (similar to the original proposal). A series of terraces step up the slope on the eastern side of the building (about 115 feet in length) and public access to the relocated ski lift is from the cul-de-sac by walking along a series of stairs. A pull-off for arriving guests is near the lodge entry, while a transportation stop is proposed along the cul-de-sac. The ski lift is to be moved slightly to the east from its current location and uphill (but is now slightly lower than originally proposed). Extensive grading is proposed along the eastern side of the building to provide for a gentle skier return to the lift and continued skiing downhill, through the Lift One Lodge site, terminating at Dean Street. Some of the grading requires retaining walls on the lower part of the site by the Caribou condominiums, Lift One Lodge, the stairway to the lift, as well as around the proposed building. The current summer access road that is used by Ski Co. is proposed to be relocated from the western side of the site to the eastern side which is also the area designated for the skier return. Staff Comment: Overall, staff recognizes that a lodge development is an appropriate use at the base of Lift 1A. However, staff is still concerned with some of the fundamentals of the site plan. Although the ski lift has been moved a bit lower on the site plan it is still 66 feet from its current location. Add to that the walk up the stairs to get from the cul-de-sac to the original queuing area and one has a longer walk. On a positive note, public access for someone with a disability has been improved with an elevator that has direct access from the exterior of the building and unloads onto an exterior terrace. With the amended site plan, the lift is still located to the east of the lodge building, but removal of the ‘lower hook’ of the building assists in opening up the view of the ski lift to the public right-of- way. The proposed lodge still encloses the lift but not to the same extant. A functioning sketch up model, allowing council to request additional views of the site should be available at the public hearing, to ensure that the reconfigured skier access “contributes to the identity of the town.” and “Provides pedestrian ways that accommodate convenient access.” The 1997 Aspen Mountain Master Plan, developed by Aspen Skiing Co., anticipated replacement of the Shadow Mountain Lift (1A) with a completely different location for the bottom terminal but also recognized that if the new location did not happen, the “lift would be rebuilt at its current Page 10 of 16 lower terminal.” The master plan also contemplated a lower lift from the Willoughby Park location to create a more convenient access point for skiers. The applicant proposes that the city vacate 13,234 sq. ft. of platted right of way. Staff questions the community benefit of vacating the rights of way, especially Hill Street and S. Aspen Street as city utilities (water and electric) are located within Hill Street and people can currently ski down S. Aspen Street to the paved road/parking area, which will not be viable if vacated. Figure 3: Proposed streets to be vacated Planning and Engineering staff do not see vacation of the rights-of-way to be in the best interest of the city, as the proposed site plan limits pedestrian access options to the mountain and provides a longer walk to the lift from the street. The request does not “demonstrate the right-of-way, or portion thereof, has no current or future use to the community as a vehicular way, pedestrian or bike way, utility corridor, drainage corridor, or recreational connection.” Additionally, with regard to the subdivision, the four parcels are now proposed to be configured into two lots. This a more reasonable configuration, taking into account the proposed use for each lot; however, a donut hole of lot area associated with Lot 1 is not actually contiguous to the parcel. This latest configuration, disregarding the donut hole, provides a lot configuration where “the proposed lot lines shall approximate, to the extent practical, the platting of the Original Aspen Townsite.” Certain improvements for the lodge are still proposed on the additional lot or within the right of way and Staff believes it is inappropriate to have improvements associated with the hotel, including some structural components, on a different lot, as this will essentially create a nonconformity. The stairway encroachments into the remaining S. Aspen Street right-of way is not supported by staff. Page 11 of 16 Figure 4: Proposed lot configuration There are also technical issues that need to be addressed. Currently an easement sits along the eastern side of the property benefitting the Mountain Queen condominiums. This easement, which is a dirt roadway, provides fire access and is plowed in the winter. This area is shown as part of the ski return; however adequate fire protection will need to be provided and the easement beneficiaries will need to vacate the easement Figure 5: Existing zone districts (2) Dimensions Proposed/Programming: The applicant is proposing a rezoning from Conservation (C) to Ski Base Area (SKI) for the existing four parcels. Development within the SKI zone district requires approval of a Planned Development (PD) to establish the dimensional requirements of the project, as the underlying zone district does not have any dimensional requirements. The Applicant is requesting Project Review approval which focuses “on the overall concept and general parameters of a project.” Through the PD process the dimensional requirements are set for the project and the neighborhood context should be used to assist in determining the requirements. The SKI zone district permits hotels, multi-family residential, affordable housing, retail and restaurant uses, ski and administrative offices, as well as Page 12 of 16 ski areas. The zone district does not have any underlying dimensional requirements associated with it so all development is approved through a planned development to establish the dimensions. Although located within the Conservation (C) zone district, the site is adjacent to properties within the city that are located in the Lodge (L) zone district. As the SKI zone district does not have any underlying dimensional standards, both Conservation and Lodge are provided for reference in Table 1, which outlines the proposed dimensions of the lodge. Overall, the project proposes approximately 70,134 square feet of Floor Area which includes the lodge and the new ski lift. Comparatively, the C zone district permits the development of a single- family residence on a lot of record, so at the most four residences could be built under the current zoning. Under the Lodge zone district, based on the density of lodge keys to lot size (which equals one lodge key per 931 sq. ft. of gross lot area), a maximum Floor Area of 1:1 or between 46,606 - 62,142 sq. ft. would be permitted3 (when deductions for steep slopes are considered). The height of the building, is proposed at 49 feet as a planned development while the present C zone district permits a height of 25 feet and the L zone district would permit a height of 28 feet for the lodging density proposed. The Wheeler View plane intersects this lot as shown in Exhibit G. The applicant has stated that the view plane is minimally infringed upon and that the building will not be visible from downtown. Table 1: Dimensional standards Dimensions Conservation Lodge Current Proposal (SKI) Original Proposal (SKI) Minimum lot size 10 acres 3,000 75,466 (Lot 1) 44,550 (Lot 1) Minimum net lot area per dwelling unit 10 acres NA NA NA Minimum lot width 400 ft. 30 ft. +/- 221 ft. +/- 60 ft. Front yard 100 ft. 5 ft. 46 ft. 0 ft. Side yard 30 ft. 5 ft. 6 and 0 ft. 0 ft. Rear yard 30 ft. 5 ft. 5 ft. 0 ft. Maximum height 25 ft. 28 ft.** 49 ft. 49 ft. Cumulative floor area 5,132 – 6,842 sq.ft.* (SFR) 1:1** 46,606 -62,142 sq. ft.* 70,134 sq. ft. 67,781 sq. ft. Lodging floor area NA 1:1 46,606 -62,142 sq. ft.* 51,268 TBD Commercial floor area NA .25:1 11,651 – 15,535 sq. ft.* 8704 TBD Multi-family floor area NA .25:1 11,651 – 15,535 sq. ft.* 12,102 TBD 3 The Lodge zone district provides a sliding scale of Floor Area and Maximum Height which increases as the density of lodge units increases on a lot. Page 13 of 16 Dimensions Conservation Lodge Current Proposal (SKI) Original Proposal (SKI) Affordable housing floor area NA .25:1 11,651 – 15,535 sq. ft.* 5,910 TBD Maximum multi-family size cap NA 1,500 (2,000 with a TDR) NA NA Minimum off-street parking spaces Lodge NA 81 keys = 40.5 81 keys = 41 81 keys = 41 Residential Max 2 per residence 7 units = 7 7 units = 7 7 units = 7 Commercial NA 6,810 = 7 6,810 = 7 9,111 = 10 Public Amenity Space NA 25% NA NA * The Floor Area range includes taking no deduction up to the maximum deduction of 25% required by the presence of steep slopes. ** Height and Floor Area allowances are based on the proposed lot having less than 1 lodge unit per 500 sq. ft. of gross lot area (81 keys/ 75,466 sq. ft. = 1 lodge key per 931 sq. ft. of lot area). The project proposes 67 lodge units with a total of 81 keys. This creates an average room size per key of 522 sq. ft.. Seven (7) of the lodging units are proposed as 2-bedroom, condominiumized lodge units with the ability to be divided into three (3) keys each. The seven units range from 1,450 sq. ft. to 1,500 sq. ft. when not divided. The six free-market units (considered multi-family residential) range in size from 1,500 to 2,000 sq. ft.. In the Lodge zone district, which permits multi-family, the maximum unit size cap is 1,500 sq. ft. unless a Transferrable Development Right (TDR) is proposed which allows an increase of unit size to 2,000 sq. ft. Previously, the Applicant has proposed to use TDRs to increase the unit size. The applicant proposes the following improvements and programming by building level. Parking Level – 61 parking spaces, mechanical, and circulation. Level One –Entry lobby, lodge back of house, mechanical, SkiCo ticketing and Aspen Ski Co. space. Level Two – Meeting/conference room, 1 affordable housing unit, fitness, back of house and circulation. Level Three – 5 lodge units (5 keys), hotel spa, restaurant, bar/lounge, back of house and circulation. Level Four – 18 lodge units (18 keys), 3 free-market residences, and circulation. Level Five –5 lodge units (11 keys), 1 free-market residence, and circulation. Level Six –11 lodge units (17 keys), 1 free-market residence, and circulation. Page 14 of 16 Level Seven – 13 lodge units (15 keys), 2 free-market residences, and circulation. Level Eight – 15 lodge unit (15 keys), back of house, circulation and restaurant. Rooftop –bathrooms, circulation, pool and terrace. Staff Comment: Staff is concerned with the overall size and height of the building. The Floor Area proposed is substantially greater than what would be permitted in the C zone district or in the L zone district as currently proposed. The height of the building is out of scale with the surrounding context and exceeds what would be permitted in both the C and L zone districts. The building sits high up the slope and part of the building is above the Wheeler View Plane, which is not to be infringed upon unless the Council “determines that the proposed development has a minimal effect on the view plane.” Staff would like to see story poles installed again, but this may not be feasible during the ski season. 3) Design/ Architecture The proposed lodge is subject to the Mountain Base Character Area of the Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Guidelines. Key design objectives include: provide a pedestrian friendly street edge, provide a sense of human scale, encourage pedestrian serving uses at the street level, reflect natural topography, provide an interconnected pedestrian circulation system, and maintain views to the mountain and other natural features. Staff Comment: Overall staff appreciates the materials proposed for the project; however, the conceptual design review focuses more on placement and massing of buildings as well as site planning. The subject site is steeply sloped and the proposed development steps in increments to follow the natural slope, thereby varying the height of the building’s modules; however, the footprint of the proposed new building is substantially larger than the surrounding development and has not been significantly modified from the original application. When combined with the predominantly four story height of the building above grade, the goal of achieving a sense of human scale is not achieved as the building stretches some 330’ in length and 90’ in elevation up the hillside. Staff still recommends that, like Lift One Lodge to the south, Gorsuch Haus be broken into two structures, either completely detached or with a meaningfully sized hyphen or ground level pass through between the masses. Staff finds that the height and mass as proposed is still inappropriate given the site topography. As a frame of reference for the size of the building, Aspen Square Condominiums, sited on a relatively flat parcel in the center of downtown, is a four story building approximately 270’ in length. Staff still recommends that the structure be predominantly topped by simple low pitched gable roof forms, ideally with green roofs installed. The surrounding neighborhood features many examples of classic alpine architecture with pitched roofs, deep overhangs, exterior balconies, wood siding, and other features that are typically sympathetic to a site with steep topography and mountainside vegetation. Page 15 of 16 Figure 6: Aspen Square 4) Mitigation/development allotments As a new development, the applicant must request and receive development allotments for the mixed use project. Allotments are required for the lodging, free-market, affordable housing and net increase in commercial being proposed. As designed, the following allotments are necessary: • 81 lodging keys which equals 162 pillows (each lodging bedroom is considered two pillows). • 6 free-market development allotments • 1 affordable housing allotment • 6,810 sq. ft. of net leasable area (compared to 9,111in the original application) All of the necessary allotments are available in the 2016 growth management year, except for lodging, where only 112 pillows are permitted to be granted in a calendar year. There are not enough lodging allotments in 2016, so the applicant is requesting a multi-year allotment for the lodging component of the project, as 50 pillows are still needed. With the lodging, commercial and free-market residential uses proposed, affordable housing mitigation is required. As proposed staff has calculated the following mitigation requirement associated with Lot 1 and explained in detail in Exhibit D. Free Market Residential 8.21 Lodge 29.16 Commercial Net Leasable 15.81 53.17 FTES The applicant is proposing one onsite affordable housing unit, housing three FTEs, and the balance of mitigation (50.17 FTEs) is to be in the form of off-site units or certificates of affordable housing credits (AHCs). APCHA has recommended that a percentage of the mitigation be in the form of physical units. Page 16 of 16 Staff Comment: Staff recommends additional on-site housing be considered. Additionally, any off- site housing should not solely be in the form AHCs. Staff concurs with the APCHA board and recommends that the applicant commit to certain number of FTEs being physically housed by the construction of actual units. 5) Vested Property Rights The Applicant is requesting a vested property right for the proposed development plan for a period of five (5) years rather than the standard three (3) year period. Vesting provides an Applicant a timeframe in which the Applicant can rely on the approvals granted in a site specific development plan. It allows the Applicant to undertake and complete the development and use of said property under the terms and conditions of the site specific development plan. Once vested, a development plan shall not be required to be amended as a result of “any zoning or land use action by the city or by an initiated measure” during the vesting period. If the vested rights expire, the project will be subject to any new regulations that may impact the approval granted. The Land Use Code typically provides for a three year vesting period and a variation from that period is at the sole discretion of the City Council. The City does have a process for extending or reinstating vested rights (Section 26.308.101 C., Extension or Reinstatement of Vested Rights). An extension, if granted would be approved by the City Council. REFFERAL AGENCY COMMENTS: A number of referral agencies have provided comments (Exhibit H) on the application: Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District, city engineering, city environmental health, city parks, city transportation, city utilities, The Aspen/Pitkin Housing Authority and the Pitkin County Commissioners.